Pledge Of Alegiance !{Sorry If I Spelled It Wrong}

[falcon9]

Uh, you have me quoting something I did not

That wasn't you who wrote:

The correct spelling is Annella (two L's).

?

Could you please break out what you are saying because everything is so muddled with who said what, that I'm being misquoted. Check again. I'll look at it tomorrow.

The attributions are delineated by  'begin bracket' "quote author=Annella link=topic=32439.msg446844#msg446844 date=1321339800 'end bracket'.  There were no misquotes and any muddling is internal.

[Falconer02]

Understood however, the direct assertion made was that you 'call people trolls who disagree with you', (which seemed suspicious to me due to her unintentional and hypocritical self-reference there).  If the other person you referred to did post ever-shifting and contradictory stances, she most likely was trolling and characterizing her as a troll would be accurate.  The accuracy of "Annela's" more general assertion is dubious because it appears to be supported by nothing more than her biased opinion.

I find it humorous that we're still arguing with someone who lacks critical thinking skills and never even bothered to defend their original post except with empty and uneducated reasonings. She chews on the fat rather than the meat of our original arguments and now look what we've degraded the thread into-- spelling errors and forum-quoting etiquette. Rather than aim at the argument, she aims with shoddy troll tactics and nothing really gets done (like I said originally "arguing with a rock"). But should we even bother at this point? Simply put, we're arguing with a-
1.) immense liar/exhaggerator
2.) religious zealot
3.) arguably racist individual
4.) witchcraft-promoter

And she's a christian...? She was believing that we're on our high-horses and was attempting to make us look like the bad guys here, but you know what? We are better than this. I imagine most of the people on this forum are too since I don't know any that fill this display. I am (and I'm for certain you are) none of those things I listed, but she is. Why feed the troll any further?

[falcon9]

I find it humorous that we're still arguing with someone who lacks critical thinking skills and never even bothered to defend their original post except with empty and uneducated reasonings. She chews on the fat rather than the meat of our original arguments and now look what we've degraded the thread into-- spelling errors and forum-quoting etiquette. Rather than aim at the argument, she aims with shoddy troll tactics and nothing really gets done (like I said originally "arguing with a rock"). But should we even bother at this point?

It is humorous if she actually 'believes' that these diversionary troll tactics work to the extent that the original context becomes buried in trivia, in lieu of actual discourse on the context of pledging allegiance to a representative flag and _not_ to an imaginary "god".  By dispensing with the diversions, (clay ducks), and returning to the original arguement, it can be seen who is posting on the subject matter and who is attempting to blow smoke-screens up people's skirts.

Simply put, we're arguing with a-
1.) immense liar/exhaggerator
2.) religious zealot
3.) arguably racist individual
4.) witchcraft-promoter

She has presented evidence, (in the form of her own posted words), to support the points 1-3 however, there have been no recent examples of #4 that I'm aware of, (not to say there aren't any; if so, I'd enjoy reading them).

And she's a christian!

Indeed, and specifically a self-defined evangelical pentecostal fundamentalist to boot.  That doesn't seem to square much with witchcraft, (the 'faith healing', 'speaking in tongues', playing with snakes bits?).

She was saying that we're on our high-horses and was attempting to make us look like the bad guys here, but you know what? We are better than this.

Isn't it interesting that when some people put others up on "high horses", what they're really trying to tell us is that they resent wallowing down in the mud and road apples?

I imagine most of the people on this forum are too since I don't know any that fill this display. I am (and I'm for certain you are) none of those things I listed, but she is. Why feed the troll any further?

One aspect of trolls and trolling that seems common is that forum trolls don't need to be feed to keep on trolling.  A consequence of the first aspect is that when trolls are fed something 'indigestable', they 'starve'.  Although I can sympathize with a 'Don't Feed The Trolls' sign, there's something to be said for 'starving' them too.  Sometimes, they lose 'weight' that way, ('cause who wants a fat troll?).

Back to the cognizant point, in context; maybe the Treasury of the 1800s intended that 'in god we trust, all others must pay cash'?

[Falconer02]

She has presented evidence, (in the form of her own posted words), to support the points 1-3 however, there have been no recent examples of #4 that I'm aware of, (not to say there aren't any; if so, I'd enjoy reading them).

Tbh I'm not in the mood to search through 2000 posts (can you blame me? lol), but if the other couple of users who were there during that time drop by, I'll bring it up. It was a pretty funny couple of pages for this forum.

Isn't it interesting that when some people put others up on "high horses", what they're really trying to tell us is that they resent wallowing down in the mud and road apples?

Pretty much.

Back to the cognizant point, in context; maybe the Treasury of the 1800s intended that 'in god we trust, all others must pay cash'?

HA!

[falcon9]

Tbh I'm not in the mood to search through 2000 posts (can you blame me? lol), but if the other couple of users who were there during that time drop by, I'll bring it up. It was a pretty funny couple of pages for this forum.

Nope, can't blame you one bit for that.  Seeing as how I haven't encountered an untruth from you as yet, the default position is to take your word for it.

Isn't it interesting that when some people put others up on "high horses", what they're really trying to tell us is that they resent wallowing down in the mud and road apples?

Pretty much.

As you emphasized in that lack-of-proof "proof" thread, the nonreasoning circularity stands out like a turd on an icefield.

Back to the cognizant point, in context; maybe the Treasury of the 1800s intended that 'in god we trust, all others must pay cash'?

HA!

[hensleyll]

All I Know Is I Love My God And My Country!!!!